namelesstavern.net

Should government programs that aid the physically/mentally disabled or ill stay in existence, or should they be eliminated? If they should stay, should the amount or number it helps be decreased or increased?

I'm pretty big on the capitalism and private organizations to help such people, but lately some of the events and people in my life have made me wonder about this issue. I haven't come to a conclusion about it.

Interested in your thoughts..

Stop being interested in my thoughts.

Im telepathically reading them right now! INTERESTING !!:eyecrazy:

you read too much ayn rand or something

government should not fund ANY sort of entitlement

charity is one of fundamental principles of life, now should government be involved in it or not i don't know

Government should have programs and setups to enable handicap people to live with dignity, have capable job training, and to ensure they are taken care of if that is needed

Charity is for those down on their luck and whom screw up.

Ensuring handicapped people have the same opportunites and a good quality of life is not charity but necessity,

If our govn't ment can help those who are completely capable of helping themselves, we sure as hell should help those who have been born with a disability who may or may not be able to do things as well as somone without the disability.

If the government does not who will?

I think that the government should not be in many things, but in the case of trying to "level the playing field" for people with disabilities I am all for it.

The real problem in the long run is what is a disability, and who/what should the government help if they are not. This is the sticky slope of dealing with racism and equality in hiring programs et all.

Those are much harder issues to answer fairly as reverse discrimination rarely works properly but is a government standard in large parts of Canada.

"Level the playing field" is not a role of our government and should never be a role. I do not want our government to create or administer any type of entitlement program, regardless of how noble it may be. As you can see from those we have in place, the abuse and fraud created in a redistribution program are inevitable. Why short change the giving nature of people and turn them against the very ones you are looking to help by removing their incentive of creating wealth to begin with? The concept of using authority to take from one to give to another is boorish.

The giving nature of people :

Right, so give the very same people who are responsible for these types of actions MORE authority over your life. Brilliant!

i don't know yamori last time i posted my opinion in one of your threads you never responded

dammuzis wrote:government should not fund ANY sort of entitlement

I disagree. When you've got young men and women willing to put their lives on the line to keep this country safe while their counterparts are off in college fucking, getting drunk, acting like retards and being ungrateful... yes they [the Vets] sure as hell DO deserve some governmental entitlements.

That's not an entitlement, that is compensation for a service just like your employeer paying you to get a MBA.

Bullshit that there should be no form of entitlement program. That is exactly the comment that always comes from those who have vs. those who don't have.

What exactly is welfare? Housing programs for the poor? Medicare? Old Age Pensions?

The entire structure of the western world is that we have some form of social safety net for those unfortunate to be in the categories that are eligible for them. The reality of some of these is to buy votes, however the concept was to help to take care of those who do not have. We live in an incredibly rich part of the world yet we have children going hungry because their parent(s) being unable to feed them.

I personally am against the majority of these programs only insofar as they can help to encourage some percentage of the population to being a social leech. However, there are a huge number of people that otherwise would be dead/beggars on the street if society did not work to help them out. We would pretty much say bugger off all you old sick people, go die, it costs us less. Same to you people who have mental illness, no room or money to treat you, go do something "abnormal" and we will jail and/or kill you.

If you are trying to tell me that somehow if there was a flat tax, instead of a progressive tax, that the "rich" would be willing to give more money to charity if they were taxed less I don't believe it for a minute. The average well to do person would not look at this as a windfall and spend the money on themselves in some manner.

There is no easy definition of what the government should and should not be involved with, but it is a hard and heartless thing to say the goverment should be in nothing. What do you thing anti-trust legislation is about? Last I checked it was to "level the playing field" and stop one company from running over others and creating a monopoly. The same concept applies to try and help out those who cannot help themselves in the normal workplace.

And before you get into why this is bad, remember that this is happening for a small fraction of 1% of the population. This is not a $300 billion boondoggle like the current Iraq "war".